QUITO (Reuters) - WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange has asked for political asylum in Ecuador and officials in the South American nation are considering his request, its foreign minister said on Tuesday.

1. In hindsight, this was inevitable

2. Ecuador offers residency to WikiLeaks' Assange

(Reuters) - An Ecuadorean government official has invited the founder of the WikiLeaks whistleblower website to live and lecture in the country, days after the site caused an international uproar by releasing additional sensitive U.S. documents.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas told local media that Ecuador was attempting to get in touch with WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange to invite him to the country, praising his work as an investigator.

Ecuador is part of a leftist bloc of governments in South America, including Venezuela and Bolivia, that have been highly critical of U.S. policy in the region.

6. that offer was nullified by Correa shortly thereafter

Ecuador has clarified an invitation made by a government official welcoming WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the country. President Rafael Correa said in a statement late Tuesday that the comments by a deputy foreign minister, Kintto Lucas, were "personal" and not an official invitation.

7. The Monroe Doctrine is sinking fast

One of the most significant and least appreciated developments of the last few years is that with the US preoccupied by the Middle East, China, and Africa, it's been possible for Latin America to go its own way, perhaps more than at any time in the last 200 years.

I think Assange is going to need some pretty good security, though -- or maybe another of those "release the password if anything happens to me" files -- to fend off CIA kidnappers.

17. Doubt it in this case

15. thanks, then obviously the Sweden wouldn't either.

I don't see the difference if he is in the UK or Sweden. if the US doesn't have charges against him then he has nothing to fear, from the US. if the US would happen to file charges then it wouldn't seem to make a difference if Assange is in the UK or Sweden either.

60. "For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into..."

"For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.

For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden's "restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody", including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Assange's fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational and well-grounded. One need only look at the treatment over the last decade of foreign nationals accused of harming American national security to know that's true; such individuals are still routinely imprisoned for lengthy periods without any charges or due process. Or consider the treatment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking to WikiLeaks: a formal UN investigation found that his pre-trial conditions of severe solitary confinement were "cruel, inhuman and degrading", and he now faces capital charges of aiding al-Qaida. The Obama administration's unprecedented obsession with persecuting whistleblowers and preventing transparency – what even generally supportive, liberal magazines call "Obama's war on whistleblowers" – makes those concerns all the more valid."

Some critical voices claim that the UK-US extradition treaty is more permissive than the Sweden-US extradition treaty. Extradition to the US, they claim, would be simpler from the UK than from Sweden.

This argument fails on several points:

The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (see Media climate in Sweden) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (see Political Interference).

14. Wow

There's a couple people in this thread that I am amazed call themselves Democrats. Sheesh. Get with reality and the facts instead of the spewage we all know this is with Sweden AND the UK and of course guess who behind it all. Wake up, sheesh.
Btw I have been around DU since 2003 or so. Thank you.

19. Assange = safe => RW trolls = mad.

82. Trolls all right

I'm saying this here too and see the thing is people on the right, some of them that are the more sane ones, they see this sort of SHIT and then we are the 'Nazi' assholes carrying water for the Republican pigs, this sort of crap is part of their sick game on the far right Dem and Repub, not ours (some of the people around here discussing this that I cannot see why they just don't call themselves Neocons). It's all fucking bullshit and all un-American. Why do we have Dems that support murder,torture and kidnapping, wtf? Why are people like these in the Dem party? It disgusts the shit out of me having to call myself a 'Democrat' alongside the swine that supports all this crap and that also call themselves Democrats. The entire dynamic of this has a stench to it.

One of the women accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). James D. Catlin, a lawyer who recently represented Assange, said the sex assault investigation into the WikiLeaks founder is based on claims he didn’t use condoms ]during sex with two Swedish women. Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called “sex by surprise” or “unexpected sex.”

The High Court in London will soon to decide whether Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct. At the appeal hearing in July, Ben Emmerson QC, counsel for the defence, described the whole saga as "crazy". Sweden's chief prosecutor had dismissed the original arrest warrant, saying there was no case for Assange to answer. Both the women involved said they had consented to have sex. On the facts alleged, no crime would have been committed in Britain.

However, it is not the Swedish judicial system that presents a "grave danger" to Assange, say his lawyers, but a legal device known as a Temporary Surrender, under which he can be sent on from Sweden to the United States secretly and quickly. The founder and editor of WikiLeaks, who published the greatest leak of official documents in history, providing a unique insight into rapacious wars and the lies told by governments, is likely to find himself in a hell hole not dissimilar to the "torturous" dungeon that held Private Bradley Manning, the alleged whistleblower. Manning has not been tried, let alone convicted, yet on 21 April, President Barack Obama declared him guilty with a dismissive "He broke the law".

This Kafka-style justice awaits Assange whether or not Sweden decides to prosecute him. Last December, the Independent disclosed that the US and Sweden had already started talks on Assange's extradition. At the same time, a secret grand jury - a relic of the 18th century long abandoned in this country - has convened just across the river from Washington, in a corner of Virginia that is home to the CIA and most of America's national security establishment. The grand jury is a "fix", a leading legal expert told me: reminiscent of the all-white juries in the South that convicted blacks by rote. A sealed indictment is believed to exist.

snip

Should Assange win his High Court appeal in London, he could face extradition direct to the United States. In the past, US officials have synchronised extradition warrants with the conclusion of a pending case. Like its predatory military, American jurisdiction recognises few boundaries. As the suffering of Bradley Manning demonstrates, together with the recently executed Troy Davis and the forgotten inmates of Guantanamo, much of the US criminal justice system is corrupt if not lawless.

Marianne Ny wrote this in a Court Administration report on the new women's law in 2001 that she helped formulate and testified as an expert:

"Only when the man is detained can the woman find the time for peace and quiet to get some perspective on her life, thus she gets a chance to discover how she really was treated. " "Marianne Ny argues that the prosecution has a good effect to protect the woman, even in cases where the offender is not prosecuted nor convicted."

Prejudice is a problem though. Our gender decides how we judge men and women's guilt and criminality. Last Friday, Angela S. Ahola, Doctor of Psychology at Stockholm University presented her dissertation on how women and men are treated by the legal system, how women's and men's stories are evaluated and that even the appearance affects on who is trusted. Ahola's dissertation confirms what we at RO have suspected for a long time - that women are being judged more kindly by the police and prosecutor. Women get a milder punishment for the same crime as men, and female witnesses are considered more reliable than male. We must get rid of these prejudices in order to claim that the Swedish justice guarantee equality before the law.

RO wants to see reviews of the rape cases that are based on facts not claims. The speculations most stop. The more innocent that are being mistreated the less we trust the legal system. We are convinced that there are many out there who have been abused by the legal system.

31. Justice for Assange

Justice for Assange
Justice will prevail...
Supreme Court Appeal
***Breaking News 14 June 2012 14:15***: Supreme Court has rejected Julian Assange’s 12 June application to reopen the case.
In the submission:
"...the right of each party to be informed of any point adverse to him that is going to be relied upon by the judge and to be given an opportunity of stating what his answer to it is...one of the most fundamental rules of natural justice...". - Hadmor Productions Ltd v Hamilton, cited in Assange submission to reopen Supreme Court Appeal
This is the Appellant’s application for that judgment to be set aside, and the appeal reopened, on the ground that the decision of the majority was reached on a basis which was not argued before the Supreme Court, and on which the Appellant was accordingly not given a fair opportunity to be heard.
The application includes a request that the Supreme Court corrects the false statement that #Assange "stands charged" in Sweden. The correction sought is of particular importance to the Appellant because this false statement was subsequently reported by the international press. The points being made as to the applicability of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) are serious issues in international law. The submission includes a contribution from Prof. James Crawford, an expert in International Law. Prof. Crawford’s contribution has been key in the submission.
"It is notable that, following the hearing, the Court on three occasions wrote to the parties seeking further written submissions on points which the Court was considering including in its judgment, but which had not been argued before it,including elements of the Parliamentary process, and the applicability of Pupino. The applicability and effect of Article 31(3)(b) of the VCLT was not raised even at that stage. It is of particular note that the issues upon which the parties were afforded the opportunity to make subsequent written submissions were ultimately determined against the Respondent. The Respondent thus was afforded an opportunity to make submissions upon new issues which were adverse to the Respondent’s interest. By contrast, the Appellant was afforded no opportunity to make submissions upon the single issue, arising post-hearing, that was to be decided adversely to him, and determinatively so." (Para 20, Submission to reopen Supreme Court appeal, 12 June 2012)

39. Which Supreme Court? Sweden or Great Britain?

22. Ditto what the other Assange defenders have said. Don't believe the smears.

Neither Assange nor Wikileaks has been charged with any violation of any law in any country on the planet, tho' not for lack of trying by the authorities. The women accusing him don't want him prosecuted; they only wanted him tested for STDs. He offered to be questioned while in Sweden before departing for the UK – he lingered there for a month or more for that purpose – and he's offered to be questioned while in the UK; that's not what the authorities want. They want him in their custody, so he can be extradited to the US (apparently no UK or other law would require the UK to do that, but it's seen as likely if Assange is brought to Sweden).

Interesting to compare to the case of Gary McKinnon, also in the UK, who basically admits to biggest US military computer hack of all time and whom the US has been trying to get their hands on since 2002. McKinnon clearly DID break the law, yet he STILL hasn't been extradited. Cf. also the case of convicted pedophile Shawn Sullivan, wanted in the US since 1994 for allegedly molesting two 11-year-old girls and having unlawful sex with a girl of 14.

Meanwhile, authorities in the US and elsewhere have exerted every conceivable means to try to shut Assange and Wikileaks down, in addition to the smears, trying to get them kicked off the internet and literally strangling them financially (all the major banks and credit card cos. refuse to process donations, even though no violation of any law has actually been charged, so they might arguably be in violation of their own credit card service agrts – but it takes money to sue them!)

29. +1 Thanks for the recap

76. Gary McKinnon did NOT admit to any extraditable offence

Whilst I concur wholeheartedly with your comments about Assange, I feel I must clarify the situation about Gary McKinnon

Because Gary McKinnon's fight for the right to a UK trial has focused on how likely he is to commit suicide, some people forget that he is actually innocent of any extraditable crime. Constant reiterations by the Prime Minister of how serious America views it, does not make it true.
So, I would like to make absolutely clear that what Gary McKinnon actually admitted to, computer missuse/trespass (Section 1 & 2 illegal access), is not, I repeat NOT, an extraditable offence and carried only a six months probably non-custodial sentence in the UK.
As regard to a section 3 offence (extraditiable) the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) said

"there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him with any offence under this section of the Act."
"the evidence does not come near to reflecting the criminality that is alleged by the American authorities."
He did not damage computers. He did not attack systems nor did he have any malicious intent.

Because Gary McKinnon suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and Co-Morbid Depression, the very act of extradition, of being ripped from one's home, family and support and being dragged off to an alien country wherein he has never set foot, magnifies the degree of punishment by an enormous factor; and that is not to mention the barbaric, out of control prison regime in whose non comprehending clutches he would be placed without trial or evidence for years until a plea bargain is forced from his lips.
Gary McKinnon does not languish at home enjoying himself... He is in a permanent state of terror and fear and has been in this mentally damaging state for TEN YEARS.

78. Thank you for that.

> So, I would like to make absolutely clear that what Gary McKinnon actually admitted to,
> computer missuse/trespass (Section 1 & 2 illegal access), is not, I repeat NOT, an
> extraditable offence and carried only a six months probably non-custodial sentence in the UK.
> As regard to a section 3 offence (extraditiable) the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) said
> "there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him with any offence under this section of the Act."
> "the evidence does not come near to reflecting the criminality that is alleged by the American
> authorities."
> He did not damage computers. He did not attack systems nor did he have any malicious intent.

The McKinnon case is yet another example of how disgustingly craven the UK government
is with regard to the "big bullying brother" on the other side of the Atlantic. Pathetic.

61. "(Sweden has) a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US."

"For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.

For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden's "restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody", including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Assange's fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational and well-grounded. One need only look at the treatment over the last decade of foreign nationals accused of harming American national security to know that's true; such individuals are still routinely imprisoned for lengthy periods without any charges or due process. Or consider the treatment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking to WikiLeaks: a formal UN investigation found that his pre-trial conditions of severe solitary confinement were "cruel, inhuman and degrading", and he now faces capital charges of aiding al-Qaida. The Obama administration's unprecedented obsession with persecuting whistleblowers and preventing transparency – what even generally supportive, liberal magazines call "Obama's war on whistleblowers" – makes those concerns all the more valid.

No responsible person should have formed a judgment one way or the other as to whether Assange is guilty of anything in Sweden. He has not even been charged, let alone tried or convicted, of sexual assault, and he is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The accusations made against him are serious ones, and deserve to be taken seriously and accorded a fair and legal resolution.

But the WikiLeaks founder, like everyone else, is fully entitled to invoke all of his legal rights, and it's profoundly reckless and irresponsible to suggest, as some have, that he has done anything wrong by doing so. Seeking asylum on the grounds of claimed human rights violations is a longstanding and well-recognized right in international law. It is unseemly, at best, to insist that he forego his rights in order to herd him as quickly as possible to Sweden."

40. Not everybody, who dislikes the twit, is a troll

41. Not everybody, who dislikes the twit, is a troll

Then they need to be honest about their dislike instead of spreading disinformation and attacking his character. There is a difference you know, and you're not helping either. Frankly I don't find your attitude to be much better than those that would break laws to get at Assange. I don't think 'twit' was necessary to write now was it?

42. Something I'd be interested to know

is whether he did this in agreement with his lawyers. Have they advised him that his chances in the European Court of Human Rights has little chance of success and this was his best option, or has it taken them all by surprise?

43. re Something I'd be interested to know

Interesting question. Perhaps asylum was the quickest, safest solution for him.
PS I don't think it really came out of the blue either. It makes sense given what is currently going on with his legal case in UK. I meando you think UK is going to let him stay there to pursue an ECHR case? I don't see this.

44. I thought he ran for office in Australia. Wouldn't that preclude his being arrested?

It would seem if he stayed there and did his work there, he'd be in the clear as a government official. Don't even know if he won the election or not, but it seemed it would prevent him being sent anywhere against his will.

I don't know what country he'd be immune to prosecution by being a resident of, since if this is about Wikileaks and not the charges in Sweden, every country allied with those who feel they've been attacked by Wikileaks has him on their 'list.' Sort of an international fugitive.

That he's been free to come and go for years is extraordinary. He's almost rock star status. He seems to have friends in high places and has always had enough money to travel the world. Sometimes I wonder what he is really about, but felt he is truly committed to these causes due to his early life.

45. I thought he ran for office in Australia. Wouldn't that preclude his being arrested?

No. Plenty of countries do not have extradition treaties with the US.

Ya he's a rockstar.

Do you mean immune from prosecution for sex with no condom, or immune from kidnapping?

Umm he is seeking political asylum. I mean I hope you know this is about more than sex with out a condom. I hear ya, about other countries and their own shit being exposed. No, it is just the US Gunning for him. Sweden is just doing dirty work and so is UK. How much of their dirty laundry is out there? I really don't know.

47. Remember. there are no charges in Sweden.

Sweden says it wants to talk to him but only in Sweden. He's not a fugitive from anything. Although, in going to the embassy, it is said he has violated the terms of his bail and is now subject to arrest.

Of course there were the releases Manning is suffering for now. I felt he was used by all sides in this. And Sweden seems both friend and foe to Assange:
Important Swedish documentary on Wikileaks (in English)

I've watched these and appreciate someone finally telling the news that corporate media refuses to report about the serious things going on in our world.

Which definitely needs to happen since the corporate take over of mainstream media, they'll only tell us what they're paid to say. Every single word, both said and unsaid, is paid for. The Swedish system appears much different than ours:
Rape claim against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange withdrawn

A real Newsweek photo gallery of Julian's Christmas, with Assange as Santa, feeding chickens, posing next to Christmas tree and opening cards, and more. Check out sack he is carrying as Santa, with note that he has been very, very good "most of the time."

The life and times of one of the best known people in the world. The reports of asylum haven't worked out. Moore details his opinion below. Assange's legal situation IMO, is an example of an empire grasping too far:
It's Up to You, Rafael

The most interesting I ever posted in relation to Assange and Wikileaks is this piece:

If you rule by code you will fall by code: the philosophy of Wikileaks

...Humans are animals of protocol. Our behavior is determined by rules - conscious and not. Until recently, the protocol was an instrument of hegemonic power: the rule-ing elites were makers and masters of the protocols that were used to control the people. The writing and policing of protocol was reserved for the elite.

The Internet today is the place through which humanity is coming to realise that liberty will require that we – the collective we – take control of the building and re-design of protocol. Wikileaks is a real milestone in that process...

The message sent by Wikileaks to governments is this: “you are using the digital to organise the world and to control the people; but that means that the people will also have access to your mechanisms of control, the code and the data; the people will be able to hack you – to uncover and subvert your hegemonic uses.” The only way governments could stop this democratising force would be to imprison the coders – a temptation some seem to be tempted by...

I've posted a lot more on this but we all seem to be involved, in one way or the other. Perhaps no so much to fear as we do at times. Strange creature, the internet. Nice to see you here again, EFarrari.

56. dipsydoodle, you understand the system in the UK best. Bail - for what? Dropped charges?

Not wanted in Sweden, so why is the UK involved officially? This all came out of the Swedish incident, which has been resolved, unless the UK itself is going after him for leaks. I haven't read they are, and don't know why they have much to say about this.

The American government is going after anyone about leaks, not the affair in Sweden. It seems the governments are overstepping their authority and I don't see this 'wants to talk with him' excuse as holding any legal grounds. He doesn't have to talk, does he?

57. It goes back to 2010

when he was arrested here under a European Arrest Warrant. He was then released on bail and effectively placed under house arrest. Last December bail was renewed at an increased amount with our Crown Prosecution Service acting on behalf of the Swedish Judiciary. At issue is whether or not the person in Sweden responsible for their request for extradition was in a position to make such a for request.

If now arrested for breach of bail I guess he'll go to prison pending appeal to the European Supreme Court unless he's simply restrained under house arrest again.

... In the letter to one of Mr Assange's legal representatives, Australian human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson, Ms Roxon made it clear that Australia would not seek to involve itself in any international exchanges about his future. Ms Roxon wrote: ''Australia would not expect to be a party to any extradition discussions that may take place between the United States and the United Kingdom or the United States and Sweden, as extradition is a matter of bilateral law enforcement co-operation'' ... Mr Assange's lawyers characterised Ms Roxon's reply as a ''declaration of abandonment'' ... The Ecuadorean Foreign Ministry issued a statement that said Mr Assange's application for asylum referred to a ''regrettable factual statement of abandonment'' by the Australian government that made ''it impossible to return to my home country and put me in a state of helplessness to be requested for questioning by the Kingdom of Sweden … and investigation for political crimes in the United States of America, a country where the death penalty for such offences is still in force'' ...Roxon letter spurs Assange flight to Ecuador embassyPhilip Dorling
June 21, 2012
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/roxon-letter-spurs-assange-flight-to-ecuador-embassy-20120620-20olu.html

77. Australia regularly involves itself when any Australian citizen is in trouble overseas...

I'm sure the US does the same thing when it comes to US citizens. In the past Australia has voiced strong protests and worked for the best interest of Australian citizens who have gotten the death penalty or lengthy prison terms in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. Why would anyone expect that Australia should turn its back on Julian Assange? He's an Australian and he deserves the same level of support from the Australian government as any of us do. After all, the government's supposed to be *my* government, not working for the best interests of the US...

68. I've now edited that post

He's still only wanted for questioning in Sweden.

Not sure about the nationality issue. Commonwealth citizens still need work permits to work here - we have reciprocal rules with Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia which determine time periods.

69. Thanks again. I hope they don't take him into custody.

His legal representatives should be taking care of all of this and it's likely they are negotiating with all the governments involved, the UK, Sweden and the USA. I'm sure we're just getting snippets.

Being from Australia doesn't help when he's in the UK, and has a case going on in Sweden. No safety at home for him. I wonder though, if Ecuador did grant him asylum or not, if it would be used as a bargaining chip between them and the UK or USA trade wise. Leverage versus liberty?

If he was silenced it'd be a bad thing for people striving to bring out the truth here and elsewhere.
JMHO.

50. Speaking of prosecuting sex offenders...

I think your post is in the wrong place. I don't read Huffington, but pretty disgusting article. Get your point though Makes me think of the GOP calling the granny testifying on some matter a pedo cause they did not want to hear her testimony? Anyone hear about this? It was pretty recent (I think healthcare related).

51. Yeah I guess, that was a little off-topic

It just annoys me that this gets so much press, yet the atrocities wikileaks uncovered are forgotten by the media after the initial press releases. Ten years after the fact and we still have no resolution on this one. We would never have even known if not for wikileaks.